It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If you identify as either Republican or Democrat....

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye




Or because they just hate the 'other' party.


Sadly true.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
What's worse, no one can philosophically justify why they choose this or that party, usually relying on some sort of cult of personality or group-think to persuade their positions, sometimes choosing simply because they are charmed by the one leading it. Often, they choose it because they have been told to, because their friends are, or because it is simply what everyone else is doing.


I think in America, politics becomes ones identity, just like football team. I personally know white trash, NASCAR fans on welfare and foodstamps who also make minimum wage, complain about the low wages and also vote Republican. This is because they identify with the rhetoric and the cultural, the idea that their problems are caused by the government and darker people is strong, even though it is their fault they have bad jobs and stay on welfare. They like guns and camoflauge more than they are interested in policies that could help them earn more, get medical attention or go to back to school (on the governments dime).



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes



I think in America, politics becomes ones identity, just like football team. I personally know white trash, NASCAR fans on welfare and foodstamps who also make minimum wage, complain about the low wages and also vote Republican. This is because they identify with the rhetoric and the cultural, the idea that their problems are caused by the government and darker people is strong, even though it is their fault they have bad jobs and stay on welfare. They like guns and camoflauge more than they are interested in policies that could help them earn more, get medical attention or go to back to school (on the governments dime).


That's probably the case. Yes, they would probably fit better the democrat party. Conservatives are philosophically opposed to racial division, and blind to color, but on the left, racial division seems to be the rallying call.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes



It's the old "stereotyping" again.

Society's real problems are in the big city Democrat voting pockets.

Highest crime and poverty areas.

Why can't American Socialist candidates ever get a plan to eliminate poverty?

It would be so simple even a Neanderthal cave man could do it !!!




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: yesyesyes



I think in America, politics becomes ones identity, just like football team. I personally know white trash, NASCAR fans on welfare and foodstamps who also make minimum wage, complain about the low wages and also vote Republican. This is because they identify with the rhetoric and the cultural, the idea that their problems are caused by the government and darker people is strong, even though it is their fault they have bad jobs and stay on welfare. They like guns and camoflauge more than they are interested in policies that could help them earn more, get medical attention or go to back to school (on the governments dime).


That's probably the case. Yes, they would probably fit better the democrat party. Conservatives are philosophically opposed to racial division, and blind to color, but on the left, racial division seems to be the rallying call.


Not in America lol

The culturally conservative south split from the culturally liberal north and started the civil war over the issue of slavery and social inclusion.

The south is still socially conservative and the north is still socially liberal, and little has changed beside party identification after the civil
rights act of 1964...
edit on 15-1-2016 by yesyesyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes




The culturally conservative south split from the culturally liberal north and started the civil war over the issue of slavery and social inclusion.

The south is still socially conservative and the north is still socially liberal.


What about Lincoln? To the best of my knowledge, he was a card carrying conservative.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen



Society's real problems are in the big city Democrat voting pockets.


This is exactly what I'm talking about, putting blame on the other side while failing to mention the faults of your (not you in particular) own side.

Society's real problem lies on both sides of the aisle and the bipartisan blame game that they play with one another.
edit on 1/15/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: yesyesyes




The culturally conservative south split from the culturally liberal north and started the civil war over the issue of slavery and social inclusion.

The south is still socially conservative and the north is still socially liberal.


What about Lincoln? To the best of my knowledge, he was a card carrying conservative.



I don't think it translates between the US and the UK, the confederacy was certainly conservative, so was the basis of segregation because the south was trying to conserve cultural tradition and social order, etc. I do think he had some Tory like qualities as well

The opposition to Lincoln was that he was growing government massively (which he did) and also use the government to institute massive social change.

I actually wish American conservatives were like Tory conservatives
edit on 15-1-2016 by yesyesyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes




I don't think it translates between the US and the UK, the confederacy was certainly conservative, so was the basis of segregation because the south was trying to conserve cultural tradition and social order, etc. I do think he had some Tory like qualities as well

The opposition to Lincoln was that he was growing government massively (which he did) and also use the government to institute massive social change.

I actually wish American conservatives were like Tory conservatives


I am Canadian, but you're right. Even our old Tory party has been repurposed into a more American version of Conservatism: the ultra-religious, anti-science type, little of which resembles the philosophy of Conservatism.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: yesyesyes




The culturally conservative south split from the culturally liberal north and started the civil war over the issue of slavery and social inclusion.

The south is still socially conservative and the north is still socially liberal.


What about Lincoln? To the best of my knowledge, he was a card carrying conservative.

The terms have vastly different meanings in America. Also, the Democratic Party was generally the racist, pro-KKK, conservative, pro-racial segregation party all the way up until the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s & 1960s. But the Civil Rights Movement and its gains for people of color caused a massive change of the parties, where the segregationists moved to the Republican Party & the integrationists moved to the Democratic Party.

This was most noticeable after the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which officially ended the racial Segregation period. This was immediately countered by the Republican "Southern Strategy", which is still in use today. Hence, today's American conservatives strive to "take the country back" to how things were before the left wing fundamentally changed American culture in the 1950s & 60s. If you're really bored, look up Nixon & Reagan's strategist Lee Atwater and his clips about the "Southern Strategy".



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Wasn't it Republican president Eisenhower who first brought civil rights to the forefront and got the ball rolling with the Civil Rights act of 1957 and 1960?


The bill passed the House with a vote of 285 to 126 (Republicans 167–19 for, Democrats 118–107 for)[4] and the Senate 72 to 18 (Republicans 43–0 for, Democrats 29–18 for).[5] President Eisenhower signed it on September 9, 1957.


Edit: After reading your link, I see what you mean
edit on 15-1-2016 by TheTory because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: yesyesyes




I don't think it translates between the US and the UK, the confederacy was certainly conservative, so was the basis of segregation because the south was trying to conserve cultural tradition and social order, etc. I do think he had some Tory like qualities as well

The opposition to Lincoln was that he was growing government massively (which he did) and also use the government to institute massive social change.

I actually wish American conservatives were like Tory conservatives


I am Canadian, but you're right. Even our old Tory party has been repurposed into a more American version of Conservatism: the ultra-religious, anti-science type, little of which resembles the philosophy of Conservatism.


I see,

Yes, those are my some of my qualms with American conservatives.

It has really become nuts here, craven, bordering on insanity. I really hope conservative elsewhere can resist because America has two alternative universes occurring, there are not facts or tenets anymore. People will not even concede 1+1=2 if it is contrary to the ideas they want to believe.

I am actually a moderate, but there is a complete disconnect from science and history going on in America.

I actually do relate to some conservative ideas, but my problem is with the right wing political system in America, the left wing political system is a bit clueless, the right wing is downright pathological with it's messaging. My deal is I fear America Conservatives because they have drifted into a divorce from reality as a mode of operation. This is why Trump terrifies the Republican establishment. They have done such a good job of dissembling reality, that they have lost control
of the whole thing, insanity reigns. The horses are off



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
What's worse, no one can philosophically justify why they choose this or that party, usually relying on some sort of cult of personality or group-think to persuade their positions, sometimes choosing simply because they are charmed by the one leading it. Often, they choose it because they have been told to, because their friends are, or because it is simply what everyone else is doing.

I disagree with that. I prefer the Democratic Party because they support more of my priorities than the Republican Party does. And I prefer the Green Party because they support even more of my priorities than the Democratic or Republican parties do. That has nothing to do with group-think or cult of personality; it's good old fashioned "doing what's best for myself & my loved ones". And frankly put, what's the point in a democracy if we're not going to support candidates that we think will work in our favor?

As for the OP, the idea is nice but it's unlikely because people don't want it to happen. Remember, people divide themselves into groups in order to create advantages and protections for themselves. Different societies divide themselves over clan surnames, skin color, ideas, beliefs, and nearly everything else specifically to gain advantages, privileges, rights, and protections over other artificially labeled groups. Until we can get people to focus on our common needs & wants, true unity will never happen.

But honestly, what would true unity even mean or look like? Different regions, districts, and neighborhoods can have vastly different norms. So what's normal or encouraged in one area may be disrespectful or an abomination in another area. A "live and let live" policy seems like it would help bridge these differences, but can we really expect people to live by that? Especially in a war based culture like ours?
edit on 15-1-2016 by enlightenedservant because: clarified something



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant




I disagree with that. I prefer the Democratic Party because they support more of my priorities than the Republican Party does. And I prefer the Green Party because they support even more of my priorities than the Democratic or Republican parties do. That has nothing to do with group-think or cult of personality; it's good old fashioned "doing what's best for myself & my loved ones". And frankly put, what's the point in a democracy if we're not going to support candidates that we think will work in our favor?


I was speaking generally, not of you specifically. My apologies.

What priorities is it you feel the Democratic Party supports?



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Wasn't it Republican president Eisenhower who first brought civil rights to the forefront and got the ball rolling with the Civil Rights act of 1957 and 1960?


The bill passed the House with a vote of 285 to 126 (Republicans 167–19 for, Democrats 118–107 for)[4] and the Senate 72 to 18 (Republicans 43–0 for, Democrats 29–18 for).[5] President Eisenhower signed it on September 9, 1957.


Yeah, one would say Eisenhower was the last great, truly conservative Republican.

Democrats were a strange party that constituted an ill-fated political alliance that could not survive as it was.Southern Democrats were at one time the most conservative force in America actually. Southern culture is godly, gentile, close to the Earth, gun loving, and traditional, unfortunately the culture was also accustomed to slavery and that became part and parcel of the culture.

In 1964, President Johnson, who was a Texas Democrat and former school teacher in a poor rural Texas, finally pushed to end segregation and institutional racism after Martin Luther King (who was a Republican) pushed back against the southern institutions which created ripe political conditions for President Johnson.

After Johnson passed the Civil Rights act, he seriously alienated the southern states which were at that time Democratic, conservative and pro segregation. The Civil Rights act was a huge growth of government power which attempted to redefine the very cultural institutions that they have had for generations. Think about that!

As you might respect the Democratic party went from being rooted in the South, to losing the south by this action.

It is also important that the young 60's liberal youth who were key to backing Martin Luther King's efforts saw the Democrat party as the party of JFK and the end of racial segregation. So as the conservative south left the party, the liberal coasts joined the party in their place.
The South went over to the GOP because the Democrats destroyed there way of life, as you will see now the South is now a Republican stronghold.

There are actually still some left over Democrats who are conservative fiscally speaking...

Both parties used to be far more diverse and much less insane
edit on 15-1-2016 by yesyesyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1



They WANT us bickering over ideological differences, that's how they keep power over us. Together we stand, divided we fall. We have been divided by today's political climate, and it is all by design.


Well said... truth.

S&F!




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

No worries. I didn't mean it in a negative way; just that some people have priorities that are closer aligned to one party over another.

Personally, my first priority is I'm a Muslim. I believe that everyone should be able to choose their own religion or lack thereof, but also that we should have the freedom of religion (as the 1st Amendment says). Today's Republican party is adamantly against Islam, particularly against us building mosques. I'm saying that from experience, as 2 mosques my father & his associates have been building have come under strong Republican attacks. In fact, one of our Republican State Reps showed up at a Q&A session for one of them and made it a priority to attack it. And even some of my conservative former co-workers protested one of the mosques. And obviously, the new rhetoric is only entrenching my views (as in, the only way I'd vote for Hillary is if she's the Dem nominee & Trump is the Repub nominee. I'd be voting against Trump as opposed to voting for Hill).

Next, I'm an ethnic minority. Both parties have crappy records with us, as our communities aren't on either's list of priorities. But post-Southern Strategy Democrats have a better track record with our issues than the post-Southern Strategy Republicans do. Remember, these are my actual family members, extended families, and close friends in those communities. Of course I'd pick the side that slightly works with us more than the side that actively says our people "were better off during slavery" (that's an actual quote, too. google it and you'll find many examples).

And of course, I'm a raving socialist. My socialism goes much farther than Bernie's does, but at least he's on the right track lol. The Democratic Party supports my economic priorities of a strong safety net and universal health care more than the Republicans do... though not by much. The Democratic Party actually sucks on this too, especially lately since the Third Way Democrats & Blue Dog Democrats share many of their economic policies with the Republican Party (and they have similar foreign policy positions).

Also, I'm anti-war and want us to divert our tax dollars towards green energy, high speed rail, a nationwide desalination system of plants & pipelines, and the such. These aren't priorities with either the Dems or Repubs, hence my support of the Green Party & other 3rd parties (those other parties also support my other goals more than the 2 established parties.)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I don't even buy into the Independent Libertarian or Tea Party---



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Also remember, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the one that actually ended Segregation. Before that, we still were legally 2nd class citizens. And the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is what finally guaranteed us the right to vote. And the 1967 Supreme Court case "Loving v. Virginia" ended the bans on interracial marriage. Many states, particularly in the Southeast, had State constitutional amendments that banned interracial marriage. It was a similar situation to last year's Supreme Court case that ended the bans on homosexual marriages.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Not so much the lesser of two crazies it is always the lesser of two evils.




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join